doglover:Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

lonerancher:I'm sorry, but if you break into my home I am not giving a warning. I have no idea what your intentions are and I am not going to risk my life to find out. I'm not going to give up the advantage of surprise and give away my position. Once I identify the person as someone that has no reason to be in the house, they are getting shot. It doesn't matter if they are armed or not. Just because they don't have a gun in their hand doesn't mean they don't have one in their waste band. Hell they could grab a lamp or many other household items and swing those as a weapon. If you aren't willing to risk your life, you should not break into someone's home. It just shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

I agree. If you shout something at them, several things can happen, and all of them except their turning around and leaving is not in your favor. The first is that if they are armed, you are now in an even-up shoot out instead of having the drop on them. The second is that they become a moving target, much harder to hit. Why would you give up your advantage of surprise? The first sound they hear should be the gun going off.

Of course, I'm a southern country boy and the very idea of someone trying to break into my house doesn't mean danger; it means "hot damn, I get to shoot somebody!!!" Anyways it will never happen, nobody can get close to my house without the dogs howling for ten minutes.

One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

You do realize that she had no legal obligation whatsoever to provide him a warning of any kind once he forcibly entered her home, right? Shooting him dead without saying a word to him, from behind, with no warning, would have been completely legally legitimate.

// Bars would probably be a good plan, but she has no obligation to put bars up. The only people obligated to do something to prevent break-ins are the burglars, who are obligated to not farking break into houses.

I'm sorry, but if you break into my home I am not giving a warning. I have no idea what your intentions are and I am not going to risk my life to find out. I'm not going to give up the advantage of surprise and give away my position. Once I identify the person as someone that has no reason to be in the house, they are getting shot. It doesn't matter if they are armed or not. Just because they don't have a gun in their hand doesn't mean they don't have one in their waste band. Hell they could grab a lamp or many other household items and swing those as a weapon. If you aren't willing to risk your life, you should not break into someone's home. It just shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.

Lorelle:You'd think that the homeowner nogoodniks would get a clue after the first break-in pwnage and 1) put bars on the windows get a new line of work or 2) move to a safer neighborhood go rob a liberal's house.

Hickory-smoked:ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.

So you're okay with voter I.D.s?

They aren't taking anybodies right to vote away but to hear the left tell it it's a vast conspiracy to take away the right to vote.

LavenderWolf:I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

No, Ann Arbor is an example of actual liberal government in action, and it happens to fall on "Best Places To Live In The United States" lists all the time.

Detroit is an example of what happens when a huge industry is the only major employer in an area, and then decides to pack up and move all the jobs to Mexico, Asia, or Canada because the American market for that industry failed to diversify and follow the examples of their competition in the far east.

As for government in Detroit, the people who run for office there aren't Republicans OR Democrats; They're just plain corrupt. Some might qualify as plutocrats, but I think most of them are simply opportunists who realize they have the opportunity to get elected (because nobody decent wants to live there and run for office) and exploit the position to steal from the city and the people. The entire Detroit government has been loaded with criminals who put a "D" after their name because it was what worked in that town. If you'd like, we can compile a list of cities and towns in the southern United States with equally corrupt governments comprised of people with an "R" after their name. There are more of those than there are of the other.

You want an example of ACTUAL liberal leadership and government? It's called Denmark. And they're doing more than OK with all three of their major parties embracing some variety of liberalism. Most of the Scandinavian region is far more liberal than Detroit ever was, and it's one of the nicest places on Earth to live.

So you keep spewing that lie. Those of us who actually lived in Detroit know the truth, and those who live in actual liberal nations and cities can easily disprove your theories.

But if you wanna talk about some of the conservative towns in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, etc...

Also, I only managed to ignore 1 person out of 85 comments. Fark, you're slipping.

The trolls are staying away from this one.

And yet, Lorelle is here trollin hard and long.

Lorelle is not "trolling". She is sincerely outraged that a citizen legally possessed a firearm and, even more offensive to her moral beliefs, that the citizen legally used the firearm in a defensive fashion.

Lorelle:doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

caeroe:luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.HiPoint pistols and rifles areA) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALLC) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.

There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Hickory-smoked:ChaosStar: Hickory-smoked: Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

Hickory-smoked: Liberals are not trying to disarm you This is blatantly false.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Do they, though?

Feinstein's Assault Weapon bill was already law from 1994 to 2004, and it didn't take away your weapons. Mayors Against Illegal Guns wanted to have expanded background checks on all firearms purchases, but not ban sales or confiscate weapons.

I have heard some people say it would be nice if it was possible to get rid of guns, but nobody thinks that's actually an option. Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they should be debated against on their own merits, but if you need to bring up the specter of disarmament by liberals totalitarians every time the subject of a shooting comes up, even in a thread where nobody is questioning the woman's right to shoot an intruder, then you're just indulging in a persecution complex.

So you're moving the goal post from "Liberals are not trying to disarm you " to "Liberals are not successfully trying to disarm you"? I see, well then there's really no point in speaking with you further is there, as nothing I'm going to say is going to hit the target you keep moving?

But I'll let miss Feinstein say it in her own words, and prove you utterly wrong: "If I could've gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in -- I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. "

So the answer is gun owners who complain that proposed gun laws are paranoid nut jobs but Americans who want people to present ID (just like when they cash a check, get a drivers license, but a plane ticket) are racists and ageists.

LavenderWolf:gja: LavenderWolf: umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:RecentThe thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLzMy links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....

doglover:LavenderWolf: doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be. Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth. All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight. This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.

And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.

"Always make those above you feel comfortably superior."

That bootlicking crap is NOT necessary to have a valid opinion about anything, except perhaps the author.

RatMaster999:LavenderWolf: doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.

LavenderWolf:doglover: LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

SCUBA_Archer:Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle". We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible. Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.

Amazing now rethuglicans, liburtdarians, blood drinkers and herp-a-derp boostrappy types who can almost count to potatoe are incapable of reading. This thread has been full of people to the left of Ivan the Terrible. Their usual comment has been "Nice shot."

But that doesn't fit The Narrative. There isn't an opportunity to screech "Fartbongo! Benghazi! Clinton got a blowjob! Wharrrr-garble!" So in typical echo chamber conservative style you just ignore it and go on with your incessant braying.

cig-mkr:Lorelle: Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

If everone is so broke, why was the dickhead breaking in ?She proberly didn't have anything worth getting killed.

Burglars and home invaders have a habit of victimizing the poor. Especially if the perpetrator is on something. They don't usually case a place or really care if there's anything valuable. Plus everyone is assuming that the guy was a burglar. He could've been a rapist or some other type of whack job.

Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle". We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible. Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

Despite what you are implying, the majority of the time that a firearm is used to stop a criminal (by non-police), the weapon is not fired. Most criminals have enough brain power to understand the risk of going up against someone who is armed. The number of crimes prevented is believed to exceed 2 million a year, though the exact number will never be known because many of these situations go unreported. Sometimes that's because the police will automatically confiscate the firearm and have a nasty habit of not giving them back.

Lorelle:martid4: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

I had to mark this as funny, it's so stupid it made me laugh.

Nah. What's stupid is wasting your life sitting around waiting to be attacked again.

Yesterday marked 29 years since someone broke into my apartment and threatened me with a gun. I moved to a safer neighborhood 2 months later, after my lease had expired.

You do realize that people like you moving out of the borderline safe areas are what eventually makes them utter sh*tholes for those who can't afford to move? All the God fearing upstanding citizens run further and further into the suburbs because they want to sleep easier at night.

hardinparamedic:Penman: You made a CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Chances are if she had a gun, and had tried to go for it she wouldn't be here typing this today.

Chances are you don't cook with a gun.

The gun is just a hotter pot of soup that you can keep by the bed. But any good interior decorating scheme should include throwable knick-knacks and some actualweapons. Swords on the wall, knives in the kitchen, baseball bat and balls in the den, questionable african doll headed spear stick curio I don't know who bought me but was a good walking stick in the corner. The whole world's a weapon just waiting to be used.

Penman:Lorelle: I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Yup. In NY she would get a gaggle of lawyers letters from the sharks the perp would hire to sue her butt into the next millennia.

Lorelle:I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

So you understand the importance of being armed.Though in many states, using that soup as a weapon would get you arrested for "harming" the poor robber.. they care about the victim more than you.

Lorelle:doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

Lorelle:Penman: Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja: Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

F*ck off, asshole.

/see, I made a CHOICE to defend myself

So as long as everybody keeps a pot of boiling chicken soup next to them at all times, they're good to go until they save up the money to move.Got it.

Lorelle:doglover: Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.

Then put security laminates on the windows. Cheaper than bars, and one can break the windows from the inside in case of fire.

It beats spending one's life clutching a gun 24/7, just waiting for the next break-in to occur.

That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

Livinglush:clarksvegas: Livinglush: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

Hi point pistols AND rifles are cheap and ugly as hell. They are also surprisingly accurate and well made, and dirt cheap

Agreed. After doing a ton of research and test firing of candidates on cheap pistols to have a couple laying there in our B.O.B.s, the only reason I didn't get then was because they are indeed just god awful ugly.

They have all the ergonomics of a cordless drill. But, you pull the trigger and they go bang. I've also heard about some bad ones, which the factory repaired/replaced no questions asked. The same rap is laid on the SCCY 9mms. Another: pull the trigger and it goes bang. It breaks and the factory fixes. I have one of each. I have no illusions that they are as good as my Colt 1911 or my Glock. But, the best gun in the world is the one that you have on you when the fight starts.

You do realize that she had no legal obligation whatsoever to provide him a warning of any kind once he forcibly entered her home, right? Shooting him dead without saying a word to him, from behind, with no warning, would have been completely legally legitimate.

// Bars would probably be a good plan, but she has no obligation to put bars up. The only people obligated to do something to prevent break-ins are the burglars, who are obligated to not farking break into houses.

Few years ago a new law passed in Florida, if you are with someone who commits a felony, you get charged too. Sure enough 3 village idiots tried to break into a man's home, he warned and the kid still tried to climb through the window and got shot. The other two kids were charged with murder.You would think this curbs violence, apparently not since the crime rate has "barely" dropped 5% since this. Fact is criminals will continue to be criminals, guns control this fact.

The problem is however, you can say bad guys can't have guns, they laugh and show you their guns.

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

Very plausible, although I'd love to see the studies.That said, giving a verbal warning is very useful for your second round of self defense, the one against the legal system.

a particular individual:One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Whoa whoa whoa. Around here people are defined by their political opposition.

But seriously, this place would be better if every thread wasn't a race to pigeonhole everyone so any point they make can be dismissed.

So when the next tragedy occurs the usual cast of idiots aren't going to push for the same infringements?

Quite the opposite. Of course they will. As per usual, though, they won't get anywhere.

Why do you pretend there wasn't a huge concerted push to get gun control legislation on the federal level passed last year?

Extremely short lived and without majority support from either party? Yeah. Terrifying, that was.

Did you think the gun control crowd was going to go on the news and admit eternal defeat? They have no teeth with which to bite you. You guys can stop going into literally every single discussion that involves a firearm and crowing about the gun control boogeyman. Ever hear the story about the boy who cried wolf? You guys keep crying wolf. Limit your jabbering to those discussions that are actually about gun control and you'll meet far better results than threadshiatting everywhere. You might support what you say later, with links and citations and stacked questions, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate to bring up the subject f*cking everywhere.

Here's Doglover threadshiatting: "But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!"AngryDragon had this to say: "Can't be. Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth. All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight. This is irresponsible reporting."

And this is the bullshiat I have been talking about.

Somebody uses a gun legally, nobody has a problem with it whatsoever, but two people within the first dozen posts jump on that as an opportunity to crow about the evil anti-gun crowd.

Tell me you understand what I'm saying, please.

So because gun control advocates have been unsuccessful recently people should let their guard down? There is a concerted effort by certain factions in politics to enact gun control. Is this not beyond doubt? Why do you malign people for opposing those that would infringe in them, especially by mocking these trite talking points? Being passive is what got us the nfa, the Hughes amendment, and the original awb. If anything pro-2a people need to use their momentum to remove past infringements.

The blood in the streets predictions by gun control advocates have not panned out.

Yes. Again, this is highly unpopular local legislation limiting rifles and shotguns to 5 round magazines. In one city. Sure, a very large city, but one city. One that has banned weapons before.

You'll forgive me if I don't see this as the first wave of a gun-grabbing invasion.

You wanted a citation of people in power trying to confiscate guns. Not only have a met that criteria, I did so with a very recent example in one of the largest and most politically influential cities in the USA. Some of the politicians involved or just applauding these efforts have higher political aspirations as well. It's not the only example I could've used. Now you're moving goalposts which assures me your stance is based on something other than rational thought and a harsher person would state you are an intellectually dishonest individual.

LavenderWolf:gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

So I guess it was all a fevered dream last year when democrats pushed for a renewed assault weapons ban and "high capacity" magazine ban on a national level? That's clearly a pro-2a move right? Gun owners have nothing to worry about because they failed, not because they tried, amirite?

LavenderWolf:LavenderWolf: gja: LavenderWolf: feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

You asked my opinion on an unrelated topic to try to distract from the issue at hand. Voter disenfranchisement is a serious issue that warrants much more in depth discussion than I could sum up in an answer to your stacked question.

I have not at any time in this thread expressed support for gun grabbing legislation. This thread is about guns and self defense. It has nothing to do with Voter ID laws.

I have been very clear on this. Access to firearms is easier now than 10 years ago for the vast majority of cases. The "They're coming for our guns" crowd needs to shut the hell up about everything under the sun being an encroachment on their rights. This is a thread about someone using a gun for self defense where nobody even questioned whether she was justified in either having or using the firearm. What does that tell you? Tells me that us gun-loving folks have already won the debate.

And again, aside from highly unpopular local legislation, "gun control" is dead. Basically, the Republicans are 100% in favor of civilian access to small arms, and the Democrats are maybe 60-80% in favor of civilian access to small arms. It's not in danger. Do what you can to fight idiotic legislation, but the constantly portrayed idea of guns being in danger of confiscation, that's entirely fiction.

Oh, whoops, I had you confused for the other guy lobbing unrelated questions.

Yours was about some politician's underhanded way of enacting legislation. I really don't care what time of day legislation is put t ...

First candid thing you wrote that is fair and balanced.The reason I asked your opinion and standing is that we in NY are facing just what you described.And it has potential precedent to carry over vis-a-vis companion legislation in other states.Gun control is most certainly NOT on life-support. The left wing is forcing it on ever-increasing segments of the population here under the disgusting banner of "think of the children" ever since Sandy Hook.There are significant implications.We here in the US can ignore at the risk of many more "Safety Act" nonsense laws being put through in uncontested manners.Had there been a vote, Cuomo never would have gotten it through, FYI. The truly devious and dangerous part of it all is he did so using a very underhanded mechanism allowing sweeping latitude in ignoring legal process. And other far-lefts have already been heard to be praising the action as "innovative". That is disturbing.

You keep insisting this is not going to happen. But it IS happening. I assure you. I am witnessing it. I know people sending their very normal firearms off to friends and family out of state to not have to sell them or spend money changing them.You need to stop thinking that this isn't happening. And you need to know it has a likelihood of spreading.Politicians ALL have agendas. I trust NONE of them. Just like lawyers.

LavenderWolf:feel that it happens somewhere I don't live. I feel that politics is dirty.

Are you under the impression that I am some kind of Democratic Party higher up, responsible for decisions? I have very clearly spelled out my position on this issue.

So, you are just going to try to be evasive and vague. Got it. Don't bother me further.I asked your opinion on something and your refusal to have the balls to answer tells me all I need to know about you.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.

Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think ...

I'll post this so maybe people can better understand where LavenderWolf is coming from.

"The Queen personifies the state and is the personal symbol of allegiance, unity, and authority for all Canadians. Legislators, ministers, public services and members of the military and police all swear allegiance to The Queen. It is for this reason that all new Canadian citizens swear allegiance to The Queen of Canada. Elections are called and laws are promulgated in The Queen's name."

So that's why someone from a colony such as this has a tough time grasping self-determined rights.

Lorelle:teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

Yeah. My mom had bars put on the windows of her old house and the QR handles were quite prominent.

LavenderWolf:gja: LavenderWolf: I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted.

Really. So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?Because it is on-point for this discussion. And is a material impact to many owners who did nothing wrong.

Uh, what exactly are you asking me here?

YOUR CLAIM:LavenderWolf: "I am fully supportive of taking political action to expand gun ownership rights in places where it actually is restricted."

MY QUERY:So in as few words as possible how do you feel about the WAY Cuomo and crew shoved a law through at midnight without any review or rebuttal period?

YOUR ANSWER:?

/because it DID happen, and is impactful to people who did no wrong, and is a model of ex-post-facto abuse

Glocks are no more dangerous than any other gun. Glocks are one of the most popular guns for IPSC and IDPA competitions where shooters have to run, draw, find cover, shoot, reload, differentiate between "good guy" and "bad guy" targets and fire accordingly. All of this while drawing from a concealment holster which is covered by clothing. I go to and participate in many of these competitions every year. I have yet to see any other cause to a Glock firing than the trigger being pulled. I've never seen the trigger "snag" a piece of clothing and I have seen them drawn thousands of times from underneath clothing. People who go on about how Glocks are unsafe are people with little to no hands-on exposure to handguns. Also if you are carrying a gun for the purpose of protecting yourself or others, having the safety on will probably get you killed. There is a reason why the Glock is the most often issued weapon by police departments. Then there are H&K models that don't have a manual safety that many departments issue. Of course, the S&W M&P series is also growing in popularity with law enforcement and again that version has no manual safety. Even the Sig Sauer 226 that federal agencies offer has no safety.The most basic and often taught rules of gun safety include: Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

LavenderWolf:and don't crow from the highest rooftop about how they're coming to take your guns,

Oh, and I have never said they are coming to take my rifles.For one, they do not fit the 'scary' diagram. Two, they are not handguns. Three, I do not have high-cap mags for them.

That being said, many friends who are just as responsible as I, are now going to have to deal with an unreasonable and frivolous bit of failed legislation (which may end up in SCOTUS' lap soon). It will not save a single life. It will only cause grief and money and open a venue to other overreaches and abuse of process. It is a bad thing, done by people with an underhanded agenda.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

The first bolded part shows just how disingenuous you are.The second bolded part is PART of the problem, young man. You haven't been around long enough to see all the nonsense.

Try some of these links:RecentThe thing that started it all

There are MANY more. But that really isn't the point. The point is POLITICIANS are prone to gun confiscation whether it be overt or via an ex-post-facto rule change.

And this warrants calling everything else under the sun an encroachment on gun rights?

You guys crow as if you've been shot.

Beg pardon? Didja blow a gasket there bucko? "Everything under the sun"? LOLzMy links and cites are VERY specific and very salient.

You are too young to have seen all the nonsense. But you can find the long and sordid history of weird laws where guns are involved.Go searchy-searchy. No lazy-lazy....

Really? I'll just quote someone else who makes the point better than I.

"Not any lawmakers, certainly. Nobody has seriously debated against the 2nd Amendment in decades. If the regulations actually being proposed are objectively bad ideas, they sh ...

Those defensive gun uses per year are entirely full of shiat. 4.7 million defensive gun uses in one year, that's one in every 70 people using a firearm to defend themselves every year. 50,000 is high but a little more reasonable than those ridiculous multi-million per year numbers.

Do you have a particular empirical reason for doubting them, or just a 'gut feeling'? Maybe you have some stronger evidence and studies showing the numbers are much lower?

Hickory-smoked:Rational people can argue that many of the gun laws on the books are poorly written and arbitrarily enforced, I agree. The problem comes from irrational people who believe in every conspiracy theory and paranoid delusion they come across, which makes rational and pragmatic regulation impossible.

I don't think that's where the problem comes from.I agree that irrational conspiracy theorists have a problem (or three), but I don't think that's the problem we're discussing here.

You may be a Liberal, and you may not want to disarm me, but that doesn't change the fact that those who do want to disarm me are, for the most part, Liberals.The buck doesn't just stop at Obama you know. Brady, Feinstein, Bloomberg... all want to disarm me and all are Liberals.

Hickory-smoked:walkingtall: a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

Liberal leaders like who?

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -Janet Reno

"I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."-Charles Morgan

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -Lenin

LavenderWolf:umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

LavenderWolf:umad: LavenderWolf: Democrats aren't trying, and haven't tried, to do anything major to gun ownership rights in my entire political memory.

I remember when I was 15. Good times.

A few highly unpopular local regulations don't really qualify "Something major the democrats were doing" where were the original goalposts set. I'm 27 now, been paying attention since Clinton's ruckus at the end of his presidency.

I've seen a lot of fanatical gun nuts preaching far and wide for at least the last decade, and I know from older news media that it's been going on much longer, about how they're coming to take our guns, yet, nothing has happened except that firearms are now easier to purchase in the vast majority of cases.

Congress couldn't even agree to tighten restrictions on felons and the mentally unstable.

Be vigilant, sure, but don't be paranoid and delusional.

What you're doing is called "back-pedaling" or moving goalposts. You said they haven't been trying or that they have any interest in doing it. Ask Diane Feinstein, or "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns". Sure, none of the liberal/Democratic groups have been successful, but they sure as hell are trying.

Those "fanatical gun nuts" only preach those things because every time something happens they get on the news or start pushing bills that limit peoples' rights. Its not the gun nuts that are causing the paranoia its Feintstein, Bloomburg, Eric Holder etc.

RatMaster999:Except these are new regulations from Connecticut. Less than a year old. New York's banning magazines that hold more than a handful or rounds. I think California is planning to try the same. These asshats are still out there.

You're not listening to him. The Democrats have never tried to take your guns. The times they did don't count because as long as you can have a single-fire rifle, you technically can still have your guns. You're delusional for not being able to see how reasonable he is being.

a particular individual:One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Well, it is the 99% giving the 1% a bad name here Im afraid. When liberal leaders actually go on record to try and soothe the followers that regulation is only the first small step to confiscation you have to admit maybe gun owners have a right to be a little wary.

DarkVader:BayouOtter: caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.HiPoint pistols and rifles areA) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALLC) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.

DO NOT BUY A GLOCK!

There are more accidental shootings with Glocks than anything else out there, because the Glock DOES NOT HAVE A SAFETY!!! It's an extremely dangerous gun.

Gosh, you're stupid. A Glock has three safeties, a trigger, firing pin, and drop safety. It does not have a thumb safety, which means the operator has to keep his finger off the trigger until he's ready to fire. You know, what he should be doing in the first place - if he's stupid enough to be dragging his fingers all over the trigger, a manual safety is going to lull him into a false sense of safety thats going to set up a negligent discharge.

You're much better off with the Hi Point. No, they don't explode.

Yes, they do. A straight blowback design coupled with a zinc-alloy slide means that a HiPoint has a lifespan of less than 10,000 rounds, maybe as little as 2,000, maybe as little as two. They are the definition of unreliable.

They're safer than the Glock.

If you demand a manual safety, there are dozens of other guns that have manual safeties.

They're less ugly than the Glock. And they have a lifetime warranty.

I think Glocks are pretty homely, but dogshiat looks and works better than a HiPoint. I could shiat in a box and write a big ole LIFETIME WARRANTY on the shiat, and you'll still have a box of shiat.

Because it's not worth addressing. We're here to yell at each other and post dick jokes in between sessions of boredom at a dead end job. It's the internet.

Posting vague statements about your gun grabber boogeyman and how other people need to learn history before talking are not the actions of someone who wasn't trying to make a serious statement. You're just at the "Deny, distract, distance" point in the Red Dawn gun nut playbook.

Do you like bananas?

I'm not a big fan of most fruit, to be honest. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. Veggies and such.

This is the only firearm I own. But I'm 100% against lawyers, lawmakers, and bans in general.

New York and California are how gun laws should not work. At the same time Pennsylvania and Florida are how labor laws shouldn't work. Then we've got North Carolina and Dakota showing us how civil rights shouldn't work. If we take the worst and best part of every single state of the union, we'll find laws are the problem and freedom the solution. Where's the best place for gays? California. Why? Less regulation. Where's the best place for guns? Texas. Why? Less regulation. The list goes on, but it's the goal to reduce it as much as possible.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm

Nope, this isn't the first step in collecting guns from legitimate owners.

Both of your links are just gibbering about the line where civilians are no longer allowed to have certain hardware. Some people think it should be with assault rifles (which, yes, are a thing and are real) being illegal, others think the line shoul ...

Except these are new regulations from Connecticut. Less than a year old. New York's banning magazines that hold more than a handful or rounds. I think California is planning to try the same. These asshats are still out there.

doglover:LavenderWolf: I'm not talking about history, I'm talking about right now.

Anytime you say you're not talking about history, you're not only wrong but also walking a well-trod path to failure. Advancement comes from knowledge, knowledge comes from experience, and experience from mistakes. You can skip making the mistakes yourself step by reading books. A few years of reading the right books and you might even realize why no one is swayed by online arguments in general or yours in particular.

You're not addressing anything I am saying at all. You diverted to tell me I didn't know history, and now you won't drop the subject. I know enough history to be on the same side of this issue as you, so why don't you step off the idiotic off-topic banter. Liberal people are not trying to take your guns. Shut the hell up, you Boy-who-cried-wolf fool, because when gun rights are actually under threat I would like to know. You're destroying the signal-to-noise ratio on threats to gun ownership.

Constantly crowing about people who want to take your guns when those people do not in fact want to take your guns has nothing to do with lessons learned from history. It is just paranoid delusion, plain and simple. You guys think *everything* is a sign that the gun grabbers are coming.

youarenothelping.jpg

/I support gun ownership 100%//And people like you are the biggest problem with the gun owner image.///Gun ownership is about guns, not your goddamn mouth.

anuran:LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"

And every damn time someone uses a firearm appropriately - something I think very few people have a problem with - the victims of that conditioning flock to the internet to proclaim to all the lands that the noble, persecuted gun-owning portion of the population has scored another victory against the EVIL GUN GRABBERS.

It's like... "Dude. Let's go to the range and then get drunk. You might realize how pro-firearm liberal people really are.

LavenderWolf: It's thirty-forty years of Pavlovian conditioning by the NRA and the GOP. "Them librul commies is comin' to TAKE YOR GUNS!!! Unless you send us your prayers and $500 they'll leave you defenseless and filthy Negroes will violate our Precious White Women"

LavenderWolf:doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

AngryDragon: Can't be. Defensive firearm use is a Fark myth. All firearms owners are just waiting for the opportunity to gun down an innocent child for some perceived slight. This is irresponsible reporting.

The two of you need to read this guy's post.

a particular individual: One thing I've learned from this thread is that conservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Because you guys reek of some kind of desperate desire to protect your guns from the nobody that's going to take them.

And you need to actually read a history book that wasn't written for the public school system.

Also, 48 Laws of Power. That's required reading to have a valid opinion in politics.

way south:/If kel-tec would get its act together, they'd be selling alot more sub-2000's in that catagory.

They're never going to get their act together. I've given up on them as anything other than a novelty gun maker. Hell, I got rid of my P3AT and bought an LCP because the fit and finish was so much better. Dumped a P11, and have stopped looking for an RFB, PMR-30, or a KSG, not to mention the Sub-2000 I tried to pick up forever.

SCUBA_Archer:Amazing how libtards can't even wrap their head around a simple fact like "a man's home is his castle". We can argue whether or not you have an obligation to respond with deadly force to an assault in public, but there should be no doubt whether or not someone entering your home without permission should be met with the highest amount of force possible. Anyone who believes that you should retreat and give up your possessions to a burglar, please post your address here because I imagine there are a bunch of people happy to pay you a visit.

It's really demeaning to call people libtards, inferring somehow they are liberal democrats. Call them what they are, Socialists.

mschwenk:gja: Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.

I agree, and know that is so. However I was examining only the concept of said warning shot (or any warning of any type) to be incitement for the intruder to further advance or do so more ardently. And that those actions might be deemed to be encouragement.And that, I think, is utter rubbish.

gja:Ivan the Tolerable: ultraholland: The woman claims she warned the intruder

fixed

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

She properly didn't fire a warning shot. Warning shots are illegal and unsafe.

doglover:Dimensio: doglover: And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

While I am uncertain as to my full opinion of your analogy of squirrels and skunks, I can state that I prefer it to the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs.

Because sheep and sheepdogs doesn't work.

Sheep will nig a farker up if you cross between ewes and lambs. Sheepdogs will, absent commands, probably befriend anyone with a piece of bacon or two.

Fight or flight, on the other hand... that works great. Both can save you, both have pros and cons. Ideally, you have both, but not everyone does.

gad:doglover: But guns are bad and are only used to shoot kids and have no legitimate place in society!

Absolutely. They are also good for suicides, murder suicides and accidental shootings of those kids in the house. And far more of them are killed than those people breaking in your house.

Suicides are a personal choice.I grew up in a home with guns, no fatalities. No kids anyway.Not planning on killing anyone, so no murder suicides this week.

Sounds like you're just a horrible person who wants to harm other people and you're afraid of that and you've attached those fears to an inanimate object as a symbol of the darkness in your own soul and it tears you up inside that sane people can pick up a gun and not hear the voices you must if that's honestly your opinion.

Can we please get a Government Enforcer to take this woman's gun away so that she can be a good little victim like she's supposed to? I'm sick of people like this who unapologetically oppress underprivileged folks who were just about to turn their lives around.

doglover:Lorelle: doglover: Oh heavens to mergatroid! Somebody broke into my home and pointed a gun at me 29 years ago! Oh the horror!

shiat happens. Get some therapy.

It's the fight or flight response, and you chose flight. There's another option. Squirrels flee from danger very successfully. But they live in constant terror and usually die in violence anyway. But skunks? Skunks own the forest. They, despite being walking snacks, have less stress than Willie Nelson three joints into breakfast. Why? Because of all the animals in the forest who fight, the skunk has the worst attack.

But this doesn't mean the skunk just walks around waiting for a chance to spray. They're actually just cool little guys who bumble through the forest looking for munchies and lady skunks. If they could, they'd go their whole life without spraying. But if push comes to shove, they can push back.

And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

When one faces a serious threat to one's life, one has a tendency to remember it, even decades later. Therapy helps in the short-term, but the memory lasts forever. And yes, I did think about it yesterday, but I didn't spend the entire day dwelling on it.

And, as I mentioned above, I didn't flee (I couldn't--there was no way I could get to the door without going past him); I fought back with what was available.

I don't have a pet skunk, but there are several cans of chicken soup in my humble abode (among other, more dangerous things). :)

Honestly, I have it on good authority(my own) that scalds suck.

Like... really suck.

If they could make a boiling water super-soaker, that would be godawful scary but great for home defense.

Yeah, while you're at it you can chuck some paint cans on string at them, heat up doorknobs, and sic your tarantula at them. That will really show those Wet Bandits!

a particular individual:One thing I've learned from this thread is thatconservatives have no idea how liberals in the real world feel about self-defense and responsible gun ownership. Here's a hint: We're not the stupid, pie-in-the-sky, la-di-dah caricatures Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent tell you we are.

Except I've seen far too many liberals saying "why not simply wound him?" or "why did they fire multiple shots?"

mongbiohazard:I wonder what the best thing to shout would be then? Maybe just start barking orders like a cop does... Instead of "Stop or I'll shoot!" maybe a very aggressive "Get down on the ground NOW farkface!" Maybe trigger am instinctive learned response, evoking run ins with the police. Did the paper you read give any hints as to what DID seem to work to not end in a shooting?

My inclination would be "Stop! Your next step will be your last!"

Misconduc:Few years ago a new law passed in Florida, if you are with someone who commits a felony, you get charged too. Sure enough 3 village idiots tried to break into a man's home, he warned and the kid still tried to climb through the window and got shot. The other two kids were charged with murder.You would think this curbs violence, apparently not since the crime rate has "barely" dropped 5% since this. Fact is criminals will continue to be criminals, guns control this fact.

doglover:And that's really what weapons ownership is all about. You don't have a weapon because you want to use it, you have it because in the event you ever need it, you'll wish you had it. While you can jury rig a spear or sword out of household goods, handguns are probably a better choice. Much like the skunk, you keep it on the back burner. It doesn't define your existence, but if you ever need it it's there.

While I am uncertain as to my full opinion of your analogy of squirrels and skunks, I can state that I prefer it to the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs.

Penman:Lorelle: doglover: That would be a good idea to add to the home now, but having a gun would still be needful in a place like Detroit. And you don't spend 24/7 clutching the gun worried, the gun is just another tool, like a hammer. Only sometimes the nail that sticks up is a robber.

You're just being willfully ignorant about guns.

Funny, when the guy who broke into my apartment pointed his gun at me and told me not to scream (I screamed my head off, natch), I didn't view it as a mere "tool."

You made a CHOICE not to defend yourself with force. What happens from that point on is your responsibility.

I defended myself with what I had on hand: a small pot of boiling chicken soup (I was standing at the stove in the kitchen when the break-in occurred). The guy yelled and ran out of my apartment.

gja:Oh group up you horses ass. You do not win this one, little miss 'no guns'.

Why didn't she call the police and run from the house or retreat to the farthest room in the house ? The police would have been there sooner or later . Why hang around when she could have clearly gotten away ? This could have been avoided . I bet this responsible gun owner creamed her jeans at the chance to kill someone

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I want to know, are you trying to intimate that firing a warning shot egged the intruder on and that woman is in any way wrong for doing so?Or are you just pointing out an alleged study, in which case:

doglover:Lorelle: teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.

Then put security laminates on the windows. Cheaper than bars, and one can break the windows from the inside in case of fire.

It beats spending one's life clutching a gun 24/7, just waiting for the next break-in to occur.

Jesus! Moving? Yeh, I'm sure she can get an even trade for a home in a nicer neighborhood. A gun is a few hundred dollars. Moving involves the cost of the new property which I will bet is a few more dollars than a gun.

Lorelle:Farkage: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

Sure, because everybody has money...right??

Guns don't cost money??

basic hi point c-9 (tiny 9mm bullet) goes for about $189 retail

you might make it out of the uhaul store for under that. moving from shiatty to shiatty doesn't do much. that's not counting own vs rent. if selling the house, good luck. i hear the market forDetroit houses isslightly better than housing in Pompeii in 79

Lorelle:teenage mutant ninja rapist: doglover: Lorelle: You'd think that the homeowner would get a clue after the first break-in and 1) put bars on the windows, or 2) move to a safer neighborhood.

With what money?

Only two kinds of people live in Detroit anymore: those who want to move but can't afford it and those who want to move but really can't afford it.

Bars on the windows is a good way to die in a fire. Especially in an arson prone town like detroit. Furthermore if you have the nerve to pull a home invasion on someone, and you get shot to death in the process fark you to you deserved it.

One can buy quick-release window bars, dude.

For only a mere $1000's of dollars per home, and there's no other uses for them.

Meanwhile a gun is $100's and fills multiple roles in both defense, sport, and in rare cases track meets.

BayouOtter:caeroe: luniz5monody: There was another one similar to this just a few days ago...Detroit too. There's home security video of it, but this one involved 3 guys kicking in a back door and then running when the homeowner (also a woman) came out with a rifle.

Fortunately the three involved were caught, being that they shot at, but not hit (afaik). She had a rusted HiPoint carbine. They're ugly, and their handguns get a lot of crap online, but those rifles are well made. They're excellent home defense weapons imo, I want one myself for home and as a range toy.

NO.HiPoint pistols and rifles areA) Made of shiatty pot metal which will split, explode, and fail at the drop of a hat.B) Are poorly made and will not fit you comfortably AT ALLC) All use a strait-blowback operation so they are punishing to shoot.

I've seen used police trade-in and surplus Glocks for 300$, Ruger LCPs and such for 200-250$, buy one of those.

As I said to another poster: cite sources that provide fail rate comparison with other brands.

I would believe it. Been reading a couple of studies on self-defense shootings, and warning the assailant is not only pretty common, it most often is the catalyst that actually serves to -escalate- the event into a shooting. Apparently, the kind of violent mind that does home invasions is also the kind of mind that lacks pity/empathy, and so cannot understand a victims unwillingness to hurt them purely on human decency/moral terms. They can only interpret the extra effort and exposure to risk a victim assumes by giving a warning as purely an empty threat - as weakness and an unwillingness to follow through. Really, they can not interpret it in any other terms, lacking any context in their own lives of empathy or selflessness. (i.e. They wouldn't stick their neck out for any total stranger, much less one trying to hurt them, so they misinterpret a victims warning as merely weakness or bluff). There are many cases of victims being clearly armed, even firing warning shots, and unarmed attackers charging them anyway. -Especially- after warning shots, strangely enough (even in one extreme case, when they came from a man firing bursts from a fully automatic rifle!). Those are quite often misinterpreted as a clear and unambiguous lack of a victims willingness to actually shoot a human; As the attackers themselves would not have hesitated or exposed themselves to undue risk for an attacker, they cannot correctly interpret the same behavior in others.

I wonder what the best thing to shout would be then? Maybe just start barking orders like a cop does... Instead of "Stop or I'll shoot!" maybe a very aggressive "Get down on the ground NOW farkface!" Maybe trigger am instinctive learned response, evoking run ins with the police. Did the paper you read give any hints as to what DID seem to work to not end in a shooting?